Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
So is it possible to know *before* when a reboot will be required ? Very likely yes, right ? It only happens when hardware drivers and kernel get updated ? The packages list is updated when the computer is turned on, anyway, but let's assume Mr. User didn't do his updates Monday, then Tuesday he can be offered this update on GDM (i don't think its feasible on boot if we already list other OSes according to the new Boot specs, and since there is already disk encryption + fscheck). And if the user clicks on Updates available (reboot needed afterwards) in GDM he's asked to identify in order to process the updates, and then it updates and reboots. But if Mr. User refuses to do the updates, update-notifier should bother him, or not ? And on next computer boot, should it still be on GDM ? As for updates on shutdown, Alex raises a good point. It requires the user to stay in front of the computer, so I suggest that instead of doing updates on shutdown, the shutdown GUI says There are updates available, it is recommanded to do them before shutting down, click here to open the Update manager, and it opens the Updater Manager. Once updates are done, it offers to proceed with shutdown. I know that in most cases this is not needed since the update will happen well, but i think its better to make users expect to have to act. If their mirror goes down, if debconf asks if a file should be merged, if a dep is broken, if a public PPA key is missing, then the user will need to be able to act in order to solve the problem. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
Alex Launi wrote: Whether or not it asks you, the idea is still flawed. Shutting off your computer is an, ok- I'm finished activity. It's really not safe to walk away during an update. David and Ivanka are working Friday evening, 18h roles around and it's more than time to leave. They go to shut off their workstations and now have to decide whether to stay longer and wait for the upgrade to complete, or have to upgrade on Monday when they return (which if it was at login would be perfect since they'd be tired from a long weekend of binge drinking and could use the extra minute to get some coffee and advil). If they leave without upgrading that's it- they leave but they remain ungraded and that's the problem we're trying to solve, getting people to actually upgrade. If they decide to upgrade they have two options, stay and wait for it to complete, or leave and hope everything goes ok. If they stay we've just given them a bad start to their weekend, if they leave it's quite possible they could arrive Monday morning and have never actually logged out because debconf was asking them a question and the upgrade STILL isn't finished. Why do they have to wait! there is no need , it is just install+shutdown! User just selected install and shutdown! We Just Make sure we send proper updates. Also... we can set rules that if the shutdown stalls for x mins , cause a forced shutdown. But users *has to wait for the updates at login* . As ScottK has said , there are policies in place which ensure updates dont break stable releases. Most of the problems occur for us during the alpha and beta releases. You are looking at things only from one perspective, You are focused on only 1 use case that computers are used from 9-6 , but think of the average user. Average users use the computers at any time they want. Not everyone wants to wait for updates to get to their work [or] hungover every time they start their machine... *Most often people want to work* , *not procrastinate at the beginning* of the day! Steve Dodier wrote: so I suggest that instead of doing updates on shutdown, the shutdown GUI says There are updates available, it is recommanded to do them before shutting down, click here to open the Update manager, and it opens the Updater Manager. Once updates are done, it offers to proceed with shutdown. You are doing the same process! both are the same. you are saying user finishes work update then shutdown.! what everyone else is saying is : user finishes work update while shutting down! What is the difference? Constant meaning once every long while. It's not like we have updates that require reboot daily. Mmost people don't mind an extra 45 seconds to get started if it means not being bothered once they're already going.  Same way, most people wont mind spending the extra 45sec at the end of work. How many times have you stretched/relax just after finishing work? So many times you hear people saying just give me a sec, let me stretch out, before i head out Not everyone is in a hurry to run away from their system/office. It is more often you see people relaxing just after work and spending some time chatting with the co-workers before they head out. Even if they are waiting , a 45secs while they are chatting doesnt matter. While the same wait at the start of work is really frustrating. There is also the option for users who just want to shut down immediately! So is there a way to mark the packages which require reboot , and Not start them during the boot , but to update them and this would just *delay the boot by a few seconds during which the present icon is shown* How are you going to not start the kernel?  Thats is exactly why there are problems with login updates.! It always needs a reboot! atleast until something comes up where we dont start the kernel. This way the user never actually reboots . But, i guess ,this can be done better with updates at shutdown. With *updates at shutdown the user never has to actually reboot* . the word Reboot doesnt even have to be used! Rebooting isn't a problem in and of itself, the interruption is the problem. Updates during use can be very disruptive (in the reboot case especially) and difficult to present in a way that actually encourages users to Update (see the debate on notification icon, pop under, etc., etc.). Updates on shutdown totally avoid the disruption if a reboot is needed, you're absolutely right about this; finally ! That is what *we have to focus on Minimizing Disruptions* , the user shouldnt even realize they are updating. we should Only focus on least intrusion methods. And unfortunately for updates at shutdown, laptops are a huge primary use case, probably more than desktops at this point. I know I haven't owned a desktop for years, and neither have most of the people I know. Show of hands, how many of you are on laptops right now?
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:55 PM, mac_v drkv...@yahoo.com wrote: Why do they have to wait! there is no need , it is just install+shutdown! User just selected install and shutdown! We Just Make sure we send proper updates. Also... we can set rules that if the shutdown stalls for x mins , cause a forced shutdown. Leaving the computer while it's still working is *very* likely to cause a sense of discomfort, and chances are people will stick around and wait for it to finish. But users *has to wait for the updates at login* . Yes, but because they're starting their computer they're not trying to go somewhere else. See the difference? When they're shutting down they're trying to leave; by trying to do more after they've said stop, we're delaying them from moving on. As ScottK has said , there are policies in place which ensure updates dont break stable releases. Most of the problems occur for us during the alpha and beta releases. I'm not concerned with breakage from updates, that's another issue. debconf isn't from breakage. Average users use the computers at any time they want. Not everyone wants to wait for updates to get to their work [or] hungover every time they start their machine... I don't know why you think I'm only looking at one use case. I'm not really focused on any particular use scenario. You're right not everyone wants to wait for their updates to get started, but before you start is a better time to wait than after you finish and want to leave. Same way, most people wont mind spending the extra 45sec at the end of work. How many times have you stretched/relax just after finishing work? So many times you hear people saying just give me a sec, let me stretch out, before i head out Not everyone is in a hurry to run away from their system/office. It is more often you see people relaxing just after work and spending some time chatting with the co-workers before they head out. Even if they are waiting , a 45secs while they are chatting doesnt matter. Sure, but what if the update takes 10 minutes? Having to wait to leave is so much worse than having to wait to get started because of the fact that's been stated in this thread multiple times about the nature of each action. Before you start you have time. You're about to sit down, you haven't started anything, and a reboot is not going to affect your work. If at shutdown you have to wait, now the computer is keeping you at it when you need to leave. This is not good. Thats is exactly why there are problems with login updates.! It always needs a reboot! atleast until something comes up where we dont start the kernel. Really we need to get away from the issue that rebooting is a problem. It's not. The problem is destroying the user's mental context. finally ! That is what *we have to focus on Minimizing Disruptions* , the user shouldnt even realize they are updating. we should Only focus on least intrusion methods. I don't agree with this. Upgrading is an important part of using your system and we need to make sure they get done, but we need to do so in as non-obtrusive a way as possible. This doesn't mean sneaking them im, it means finding the right time and right way to present the user with the fact that they're available, and need installed. You are forgetting something *we are not designing Ubuntu Only for the people on this list* , Ubuntu is used more on Desktops than laptop on the whole, that is what we have to design not based our personal experiences , but for the Average users. Your assumption that only corporate environment uses desktop is wrong. How many laptops are sold/used in comparison to desktops? I'm not forgetting anything, I know who we're designing Ubuntu for. If you think that laptops aren't a primary use case, you're severely out of touch. Google around, laptop sales are much higher than desktop sales, and this trend does not seem to be going away any time soon. -- -- Alex Launi ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
Alex Launi wrote: Leaving the computer while it's still working is /very/ likely to cause a sense of discomfort, and chances are people will stick around and wait for it to finish. As you say, chances are i.e user *can wait* but is not forced to, but for a login update user *has to wait* . Login update is a forced behavior. while the shutdown is the users option to stick around! *A forced behavior is always frustrating* , while if the user is waiting out of his own discomfort it is not frustrating since he chooses to stay. We are just looking for a solution that doesnt frustrate the user. cheers, mac_v ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
Il 07/07/2009 12:55, mac_v ha scritto: Why do they have to wait! there is no need , it is just install+shutdown! User just selected install and shutdown! I just don't trust the system enough to guarantee it will shut down, and don't trust an old laptop I use at office enough to be sure that it won't burn the office if left unattended for the night. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
Siegfried Gevatter wrote: 2009/7/7 mac_v : As you say, chances are i.e user *can wait* but is not forced to, but for a login update user *has to wait* . Login update is a forced behavior. while the shutdown is the users option to stick around! Why is it forced? If I understood the proposal correctly, you'd be asked if you want to update, and required to introduce your password for the updates to be installed. Nobody will force you to do anything. Well... the user has to update at some point, right. Even if he chooses to ignore it for now, he has to do it again at some time. We are forcing him to wait,. He will have to sit idle , waiting for the system to update. While the shutdown update its his own choice to wait. cheers, mac_v ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:18 PM, mac_v drkv...@yahoo.com wrote: Well... the user has to update at some point, right. Even if he chooses to ignore it for now, he has to do it again at some time. We are forcing him to wait,. He will have to sit idle , waiting for the system to update. While the shutdown update its his own choice to wait. This isn't much of a choice. You can wait, and know that everything is working, or you can leave and maybe you'll come back next time and realized that you never shut down, or your battery died in the middle of a kernel upgrade. Choice isn't always best. In fact, it's often not. -- --Alex Launi ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:12:24 +0530 mac_v drkv...@yahoo.com wrote: So is there a way to mark the packages which require reboot , and Not start them during the boot , but to update them and this would just *delay the boot by a few seconds during which the present icon is shown* The current mechanism involves touching a file with the package postinst, so there is no way to know prior to install if a package update will require reboot or not. Scott K ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
Em Sáb, 2009-07-04 às 10:15 +0200, Steve Dodier escreveu: I don't think (b) is a good idea for the following reasons : * When the user shuts the PC down, he doesn't expect to give it attention anymore. An update can fail or be interrupted for some reasons (package missing on a server, internet connectivity broken, kernel upgrade asks if the menu.lst should be changed, etc). How do we let the user control the update process in these cases ? How do we make sure the user's attention isn't needed ? That is a good point. However, the likelihood of a failure in a security update that doesn't allow for a clean shutdown is very low (it never happened to me and I use Linux since 1994). Anyhow, problems can arise and they will only show up in the next boot, which may be a very bad time. The same problem would happen in updates at login. * What about laptops ? Sometimes you shutdown your laptop because you're about to move. Do you want, in this case, to have to wait for the upgrade to perform ? I don't think Mark, or anybody here is saying that updates should be forced on logout (or shutdown). We are just saying that the option should be presented to the user (maybe with the default action being update, I am not completely sure about this). If the person wants the machine to turn off fast, he/she should just skip the upgrade. I'm not against the idea itself, but I think it should be an optional thing, not enabled by default. As I said, updates at any moment should be optional (maybe if the update is the default action). best, Paulo ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
2009/7/4 Steve Dodier sidnio...@gmail.com: * What about laptops ? Sometimes you shutdown your laptop because you're about to move. Do you want, in this case, to have to wait for the upgrade to perform ? I know a few people who initiate the shutdown process, and as they are in a hurry will leave the shutdown happening as they stuff the laptop in their bag. If the system carried on working in the bag - performing updates - which are often fairly intensive CPU/IO wise, there's the real possibility the laptop will overheat and become permanently damaged. If it was an option Shutdown / Suspend / Shutdown with updates then one can clearly make the choice whether to install or not on that occasion. I think the Windows way of doing it is worth looking at, but with the default to be Shutdown and not Shutdown with updates. Cheers, Al. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth m...@ubuntu.com wrote: Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed because of the common requirement to reboot after updates. This is actually the case where update on login works best. Any other time rebooting is totally interruption. You're working, you need to decide whether or not rebooting is important enough, and then if you do decide to reboot, you need to save all of your state, and actually do the deed. Immediately after boot you don't have this problem. Instead of starting to work and then being disturbed, you delay starting until you can really start, without interruption. -- --Alex Launi ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
On sab, 2009-07-04 at 15:31 -0300, Paulo J. S. Silva wrote: That is a good point. However, the likelihood of a failure in a security update that doesn't allow for a clean shutdown is very low (it never happened to me and I use Linux since 1994). I know that perhaps it is overkill to talk about this right now but I hear too many voices in favour of automatic upgrades. It happened to me several times in my life that an update broke the system often in unrecoverable ways. In jaunty, the pre-latest intel update (sigh) broke Xorg, it could not start because of a problem in detecting the LVDS. I do not have any clue on how to get elder debs, so I had to wait next update and use karmic in the meantime. (Let me open a parenthesis: I could not figure out how to bring the wireless network up from command line because iwconfig seems to be a no-action nowadays - NetworkManager does not have a command line interface; usability in extreme situations should be taken more into account perhaps by making a specific investigation on the current system). You can now jump on me and say aha! that was not a security upgrade, but the truth is that it happened several times since when I started to appreciate upgrades (debian potato) and I can't tell when an upgrade was for security reasons because I never cared to make a distinction. I think many already stated this, but if the plan is to do any automatic upgrade, then it MUST be backed up by a sane rollback policy. It just suffices to keep a copy of the very basic needs of apt, and a copy of the old debs in the systems with their configuration, we have everything in place from the technical side. OTOH, there is the problem that an upgrade may convert e.g. configuration files to new formats. But this is not going to happen for a security upgrade, that could be made into a strict requirement. I recall some discussion about automatized revert on ubuntu-devel-discuss, but is the idea still appreciated? Vincenzo ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
Alex Launi wrote: On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth m...@ubuntu.com mailto:m...@ubuntu.com wrote: Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed because of the common requirement to reboot after updates. This is actually the case where update on login works best. Any other time rebooting is totally interruption. You're working, you need to decide whether or not rebooting is important enough, and then if you do decide to reboot, you need to save all of your state, and actually do the deed. Immediately after boot you don't have this problem. Instead of starting to work and then being disturbed, you delay starting until you can really start, without interruption. 's a fair point. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
On 07/06/2009 08:21 PM, David Siegel wrote: Mark Shuttleworth wrote: Alex Launi wrote: On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth m...@ubuntu.com mailto:m...@ubuntu.com wrote: Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed because of the common requirement to reboot after updates. This is actually the case where update on login works best. Any other time rebooting is totally interruption. You're working, you need to decide whether or not rebooting is important enough, and then if you do decide to reboot, you need to save all of your state, and actually do the deed. Immediately after boot you don't have this problem. Instead of starting to work and then being disturbed, you delay starting until you can really start, without interruption. 's a fair point. Also, as there is no user state before login, we can reboot the machine without user confirmation. With fast-boot and KMS, we completely remove the pain from rebooting after updates -- in fact, the user probably won't even notice the reboot (we should suppress startup sounds on the reboot). This is a really good point. We would do well to remember that users don't get frustrated simply at rebooting, their frustration is delaying their ability to *use* their desktop. Time and the appearance of more time is the source of the problem with rebooting, not the fact that a machine needs to cycle due to a kernel update or whatever. -- Joshua Blount // Ubuntu One // http://launchpad.net/~jblount ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 10:15 +0200, Steve Dodier wrote: I don't think (b) is a good idea for the following reasons : * When the user shuts the PC down, he doesn't expect to give it attention anymore. An update can fail or be interrupted for some reasons (package missing on a server, internet connectivity broken, kernel upgrade asks if the menu.lst should be changed, etc). How do we let the user control the update process in these cases ? How do we make sure the user's attention isn't needed ? * What about laptops ? Sometimes you shutdown your laptop because you're about to move. Do you want, in this case, to have to wait for the upgrade to perform ? I'm not against the idea itself, but I think it should be an optional thing, not enabled by default. SD. Why is there an assumption that updates on shutdown would work like Windows, where it basically tricks the user by doing that as a default? There are much better ways to do this with the same functionality minus the negatives, largely because we don't depend on it. (Thanks mostly to cleverer file systems). I think it makes a lot of sense to have a Shut down when finished check box in the update progress bar, as well as an Update and Shut Down option that the user can optionally choose when he is logging out. As an alternative, the former could be replaced by a smarter log out process that detects a running process like an update and waits for it to quit before proceeding. This would remove the cruftiness of that first solution and scale to other things, too. Something really important to remember is that a cancelled update is a really, really bad thing (for us and them). Thus, we should never risk anything that would cause such behaviour. For example, I thought for a second it would be cool to auto install updates at boot if they have been downloaded already (like fsck), but it would not be safe to cancel that (unlike fsck), triggering numerous loud exclamations of a rude word that looks similar to the command. With that in mind, I think automatic updates are evil (downloading them isn't so much), but the benefits can be mostly obtained by giving the user the right buttons to press. For the rebooting end of things... how well is GNOME's session saving working in 9.10? Perhaps the user's session after an update could be saved, so when the system reboots he gets something reasonably close to what he left. A hack to automatically log in could be interesting, too, although possibly a security disaster. (I'm no security expert, so maybe there's a good way to do it). I also really love the gift icon. It's cute and meaningful. Although it may be better suited to notification about new releases :) -- Dylan McCall dylanmcc...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:46:19 -0400 Joshua Blount jos...@canonical.com wrote: On 07/06/2009 08:21 PM, David Siegel wrote: Mark Shuttleworth wrote: Alex Launi wrote: On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Mark Shuttleworth m...@ubuntu.com mailto:m...@ubuntu.com wrote: Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed because of the common requirement to reboot after updates. This is actually the case where update on login works best. Any other time rebooting is totally interruption. You're working, you need to decide whether or not rebooting is important enough, and then if you do decide to reboot, you need to save all of your state, and actually do the deed. Immediately after boot you don't have this problem. Instead of starting to work and then being disturbed, you delay starting until you can really start, without interruption. 's a fair point. Also, as there is no user state before login, we can reboot the machine without user confirmation. With fast-boot and KMS, we completely remove the pain from rebooting after updates -- in fact, the user probably won't even notice the reboot (we should suppress startup sounds on the reboot). This is a really good point. We would do well to remember that users don't get frustrated simply at rebooting, their frustration is delaying their ability to *use* their desktop. Time and the appearance of more time is the source of the problem with rebooting, not the fact that a machine needs to cycle due to a kernel update or whatever. On the other hand, fast boot is an explicit Ubuntu design goal for a variety of reasons including users typically start their computers because they want to use them. Before getting too set on installing updates at boot, I'd suggest some discussion with the people on the Ubuntu foundations team working on faster boot speed. Scott K ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
I'm just catching up on this thread, and want to help draw it to a conclusion. Updates-on-login are interesting, but I think fatally flawed because of the common requirement to reboot after updates. Updates are an irritation and interruption at any time, we must accept that. I've seen people say I generally prefer for XXX to happen immediately whether XXX is login, shutdown, boot or restart. There's no good time to offer the updates. What we can do is to make sure updates are bulletproof (thank you to the Ubuntu Platform team for their hard work on SRU's) and that updates don't need to ask questions. We can also come up with good solutions to the problems that some apps have if they are running during an update, such as Firefox and Mozilla. Both of them can now statefully be restarted, we should consider doing that as part of the update. My guidance is to do (a) updates in-session well, and (b) updates-on-shutdown, on the basis that the former can be scheduled by the user between work, and the latter at least comes at a time when the user is moving their attention away from the desktop. I also very much like the rebranding of updates as gifts! Let's run with that. Mark signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
Love the package icon, David. :) To jump into the fray, I'm not sure what the advantage is of forcing the user to wait during the upgrade rather than processing the upgrade after they've logged in. Alex's original suggestion of having the user choose to login and THEN update seems to make more sense. But, please do share your reasoning. As an example of inappropriately forcing the user to wait for an update, I recently subscribed to the Gnome Colors PPA. For those who have done the same, you'll notice that they update frequently (nearly every day). That's a fairly large and lengthy update process to be waiting for. The only situation in which I think the user should be forced to wait is perhaps when there is an update that requires a reboot. Are we able to identify these updates beforehand? If so, then in this case the message treatment on GDM could change as well, saying something along the lines of 12 updates available. Click to install and reboot. Perhaps the best choice though is to never force the user to install. Even in the case where a reboot is required, leaving a reboot notification in the notification tray sounds like the right thing to do. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:44 PM, David Siegel david.sie...@canonical.comwrote: Kind of kitchy, but puts a more positive spin on the updates. Your mockup makes it look like you must update immediately or risk certain death. David ajmctaggart wrote: Ok, so clearly there are pros/cons to every update situation. Perhaps what I would like to see, as the user, is the option to have the ability to be notified of an update when I want it, at startup or shutdown? Looks like a simple edition to the Setting, menu of current Update Manager, as there are already the option for Download, Notify only, etc. Perhaps this is what the gdm login screen would look like? Obviously the usability experts may have some ideas on placement, wording, etc... I just wanted to get a visual out there. Obviously the discussion is still on the table, and I am not too sure if it should really be ignored as a viable option on user interaction with updates. Thanks, Anthony On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Vadim Peretokin vpereto...@gmail.commailto: vpereto...@gmail.com wrote: When you turn on your computer, you are engaging with it, signaling that you have time and attention to give to the machine. Why do you think so? A computer can be turned on perform a task with its help, not to maintenance on itself. Sometimes one wants to google a map or something quickly before leaving would be an example. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatanahttps://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net mailto:ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatanahttps://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatanahttps://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatanahttps://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- sfm ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
You might want to read this http://lifehacker.com/5295449/disable-ubuntus-annoying-update-manager-popup Alex Launi wrote: I figured I should start a new thread for this, so that you can all continue your icon vs. pop-under debate, which is still relevant for the auto-login case, although it becomes much less important. I've copied and pasted the relevant posts from the previous thread into this one. Have at it. === On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Alex Launi alex.la...@gmail.com mailto:alex.la...@gmail.com wrote: I had meant to chat with Martin Pitt after his plenary, but never managed to catch up with him. I forgot about it until I was going through my notebook the other day. It would be really great if when update-manager presented itself, some bugs (ones that you reported/subscribed to on LP) had a nice messsage that made you really excited to update because your bug was fixed! Make updates fun! David Siegel also had a really great idea for making updates fun (and it also solves the issue of how to handle updates- notification icon or pop-under window) at the install updates on shutdown discussion. Let me preface this with these are his ideas and not mine, I think they're great and he deserves the credit. His idea was to do updates at login. We could do the checking while you're using, and then if we find them on reboot show them in gdm with a nice present icon, like we're giving you a gift. This way if an update requires a restart, you don't have to save your state, restart, blah blah blah and interrupt your entire workflow, you haven't started yet. It might not be possible now, but when the clutter gdm finally lands we could do it really beautifully. -- -- Alex Launi On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM, tacone tac...@gmail.com mailto:tac...@gmail.com wrote: Good intent, bad idea. When you turn on the pc it's because you needed. Windows shows the update notification on shutdown, which makes much more sense (and if you just installed some reboot requiring update, even more). I wouldn't oppose to a well done, good designed entry on shutdown: Updates available ! Keeping your system up to date is important. [x] Install the updates before logging out. [ Open the update manager ] - Stefano On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Alex Launi alex.la...@gmail.com mailto:alex.la...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM, tacone tac...@gmail.com mailto:tac...@gmail.com wrote: Good intent, bad idea. I disagree, let's imagine this scenario, together... blur and wiggle dream sequence style scene change It's Tuesday morning, you get up and turn on your computer. Whilst you were fast asleep dreaming of sugar plums and sexy librarians Ubuntu packagers were hard at work packaging updates for your favourite operating system. Now that it's morning, these updates are available, for you! You boot up and arrive at the slick new GDM. But what's this message? New updates available! Click here to install Some days you're very busy, and need your computer right away so you chose to ignore them and log right in. That's ok, they'll be available when you're ready. Update Manager shouldn't go away, you should be able to launch it yourself manually if you want to update once you've logged in and found out that DST was this weekend and you've got some extra time. But today you decide to click. The interface changes nicely into a screen displaying what updates are available, and asking for your username and password to authorize install / log in. If you're not an administrator we will politely tell you that you can't perform an upgrade, and that you should let your administrator know that your system needs some updates. At this point we just finish the login, since you just gave us your info. Awesome. Now let's say you are an admin, this update requires no reboot so we log you right in, and when the desktop is loaded there is already a dialog waiting giving you the progress of your update. You may continue working, you weren't cost much time, and your system is fully secure because you're up to date. But next time there might be a kernel upgrade, which will require a restart. In this case we should ask the user what they'd like to do. In some cases the estimated time to finish (which we will show) may only be 2 minutes, and we can afford that so we just halt the login and modally install the upgrades, or we allow them to say ok i recognize that this update will need a restart to apply, but I need my computer- so lets continue like there are no updates that require a reboot, and I will reboot when I'm ready. blur and wiggle dream sequence end style change Awesome, right? -- --Alex Launi On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Charlie Kravetz c...@teamcharliesangels.com mailto:c...@teamcharliesangels.com wrote: What about those who use an autologin? They
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
I think it would be interesting if the user must wait at GDM for updates to finish (assuming they were downloaded previously), and is only allowed to log in when updates have finished. This process only takes a minute or two, and the user can choose to not initiate the updates or cancel them and log in at any point. David Alex Launi wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:51 AM, mac_v drkv...@yahoo.com mailto:drkv...@yahoo.com wrote: First of all you painted a story saying: devs had update ready in the night and the user got the update in the morning! That is misleading ! It was supposed to be an allusion to some kind magic entity like god, Santa Claus, or the easter bunny. I'm sorry if you're a non-native speaker and read that literally. I didn't consider that some people wouldn't get humour, and mistake my jokes for proposals. The story was supposed to be playful. BUT assuming that the update state was checked before: 1: Why wait? What is the advantage in deferring the update? Because we have a problem with how updates are presented. We need to find a way that makes updates not a chore but a fun task and makes sure the user ACTUALLY installs them, rather than just ignoring a notification icon. 2: Why defer a security update to the next boot? Why defer it for 2 weeks while the icon sits idle. For high priority updates we may want a mechanism to update the user, this is ok in this case because it's not a normal update, it's high priority and must be addressed now. This is similar to the actionable notification debate. 3: What about users who do not shutdown the systems? no updates for them? Theyre essentially the same as the autologin people, we say have updates been here for n days, now we need to show a window because they havent been to a login screen 4: What if the [non-security]update to a program is deferred to the next boot and the program crashes, causing work loss? What? This isn't a real case. The bug causing the crash existed before the update was available, the user already know this app is buggy. Or, the user hasn't ever experience the bug before and may not suffer from it at all. It's possible the bug might strike in the day before installing the patch, but it more likely would have already happened or isn't going to happen. So basically this potentially /prevents/ issues. Currently if you update firefox, a lot of stuff in XUL breaks due to its lazy loadig If the propsal for the above is that the system waits [x hrs/days] before reminding the user of the update. Do you mean notifiying updates havent been installed or something? Or Is this a follow up to 4. If it's a follow up to for you can skip the follow ups with a im not going to answer because 4 made no sense. 5: what is the use of having updates scheduled for boot? To help ensure they actually install updates. 6: what is the acceptable time limit to defer an update?[the update may be critical to the program the user needs, which has been crashing, would the user want this update immediately?] This is irrelevant to the discussion and is an implementation detail. You DO get on with your work, you just start the update process first, and then move on. What you need to remember is that work may involve net browsing, so speeds are hampered during the work. The user might mot have planned on using the net , but needs to browse for research , so his only option is to cancel the on going update? also if the user is allowed to work and it prompts for reboot, isnt that a break in work flow? he may choose to do it later , but the main purpose of the proposal does not achieve its goal . This is what we do now so this isn't actually a regression. If you read story (for what, the 3rd time?) you'll see that the user is NOTIFIED that this update will require a reboot. So the user is already aware that in a short time theyll be aksed to reboot, they can chose to wait and go make some tea or proceed with the knowledge that a reboot will be necessary soon. -- --Alex Launi ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
On 06/17/2009 10:40 AM, Paulo J. S. Silva wrote: Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to do this at shutdown (or logout for users that don't shutdown). When I login, I want to my stuff. When I logout I am saying: I'm done for know. Interesting that you suggest shutdown. When I shutdown, I generally need my machine to go down *now*. It may be a good idea, as David suggested, to look past our personal user stories, and look for what most people would find useful. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Paulo J. S. Silva pjssi...@ime.usp.brwrote: Are you kidding? Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to do this at shutdown (or logout for users that don't shutdown). When I login, I want to my stuff. When I logout I am saying: I'm done for know. When I'm finished work, I'm in a much bigger hurry than when I'm arriving. I want to go home, see my friends, and have fun. I don't want to wait for the computer to update. When I'm logging in however, MOST of the time I'm about to do work for a while, so I have time to sit and wait for updates. Imagine that you are leaving home, a little late, and decide to look for a map in google maps. Wife and kids are already in the car. The you scream from the office Dear, will have to wait for five minutes more because Ubuntu is forcing me to update now! There's a big issue with reading on this list. If you read what David and I both said, you're not forced to update. You have to tell it to update. -- --Alex Launi ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
I'll second this. In my use-case, my mother *really* hates doing updates (only does them after a while, and hates the orange icon - I suppose that'll improve with an upgrade to jaunty). Forcing her to wait for updates after she turns on the computer for something would really be backwards. Nevermind that it takes away control from the user and instead of spoon-feeding, it force-feeds them. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
Il giorno mer, 17/06/2009 alle 09.26 -0500, David Siegel ha scritto: I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not think of gurus like us The argument that's for gurus or power users keeps popping up :) This can not be applied here: auto-login is enabled by checking an innocent checkbox during install, and I am sure this is more interesting for non-power-users who have only one user account on their machine. Not that I do not find the idea interesting, it's just an observation on that particular argument that I don't like too much. V. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
Vadim Peretokin wrote: I'll second this. In my use-case, my mother /really/ hates doing updates (only does them after a while, and hates the orange icon - I suppose that'll improve with an upgrade to jaunty). Forcing her to wait for updates after she turns on the computer for something would really be backwards. Nevermind that it takes away control from the user and instead of spoon-feeding, it force-feeds them. Vadim, check out my last email. When we discuss these things, it's best to give each suggestion the benefit of the doubt so we don't accidentally attribute invented flaws to good ideas. When you turn on your computer, you are engaging with it, signaling that you have time and attention to give to the machine. When you turn off your computer, are are disengaging with it, signaling that you need to go do something else and not use the machine any more. The Set it and forget it mentality of updates at shutdown is actually a very advanced user behavior, and does not work well for anyone, even advanced users, on portable computers. David ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
Vincenzo Ciancia wrote: Il giorno mer, 17/06/2009 alle 09.26 -0500, David Siegel ha scritto: I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not think of gurus like us The argument that's for gurus or power users keeps popping up :) This can not be applied here: auto-login is enabled by checking an innocent checkbox during install, and I am sure this is more interesting for non-power-users who have only one user account on their machine. Not that I do not find the idea interesting, it's just an observation on that particular argument that I don't like too much. V. Yeah. It's a good thing that you pointed out that auto-login can be activated during install. I use the auto-login feature too and run xtrlock on startup for protection but that's already offtopic. I don't think that updates on login or at shutdown is a good idea. Routine fsck can attest to this. Most of the time, it's not the right time to wait for updates because the user is in a hurry to do what he wants to do with the computer, in my case at least. It's a good thing that there's an option now to cancel this routine check. Unlike fsck, updates can be done on a running DE session. If notifying about updates at startup really is a good idea, the right thing to do could be simply notifying the user that there are updates and letting the user choose whether or not to permit the upgrade while not restricting the user from doing typical desktop operations while the upgrade is running. A use case would be Jack wants to IM his classmate soon because she texted him she is already online. Jack turns the computer and sees updates notifications after he logged in. He then permits the upgrade and while the upgrade is running, he opens Pidgin so he can chat right away. The upgrade should be after GDM because some people auto-login or don't use GDM. Also, processing package information while loading GDM would slow down login. That would be very annoying. I also don't agree with updates on shut down. I'm on a laptop and it's annoying when Windows doesn't want to power off when I want it to because I'm uncomfortable with bagging my laptop and carrying it around while it upgrading. That's just bad for my hard drive and my hardware will be hot. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
People who auto-login or never restart can be handled differently.
Personally, I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not
think of gurus like us, who participate on Linux mailing lists, and let's
think instead about the average user, who might be made uncomfortable by
computers in general, and may be nervous about their first venture into
Linux.
The core of the idea is, at the face browser, there is a present icon when
you have updates already downloaded and ready to install. They might even be
unpacked already. Beside the present is a simple description like 13
updates available, requires restart. Click to update. The user either logs
in as usual, ignoring the icon (maybe it's at the bottom/corner of GDM), or
clicks the present. Clicking the present prompts for a password, and then
shows an elegant progress bar, installing the updates. If the updates
required a restart, the machine simply restarts, and our new 10 second boot
time brings the machine back up before the user even notices it's
restarting. We don't have to confirm shutdown, because nobody is logged in.
Then, the user logs in to her newly updated desktop.
There are drawbacks to this approach, sure, but do you honestly not see any
merit? I think it delivers a much more pleasant experience than asking the
user at shutdown. At GDM, the user is not in a hurry, and they can take a
moment to decide if they would like to update or not. Asking the user to
update at shutdown feels like a rushed decision; the machine is shutting
down, and you have a brief moment to either opt-in or opt-out of updates.
David, don't think I want to discourage you in any way. I'm pretty
happy with initiatives like yours.
But, of course, one has to see which advantages those effectively bring.
Frankly, seems to me that the only merit you cite ('more pleasant
experience') is highly subjective as it is the consideration that at
login the user is less in hurry than on shutdown. The hurry factor, by
the way, varies depending on the platform (desktop/notebook/netbook).
I'd frankly consider a netbook/notebook user always in hurry, and that
brings down both the login/logout alternatives. For a desktop, though,
the shutdown is nicer.
Sure everything can be ignored, but that also means that such feature
would affect a lower percentage of users, making it less compelling.
I also think that doing things at start up will require much more code
respect of the shutdown option and increased complexity in the
configuration panels (see for example the proposed configuration panel
that will be needed for handling the pop-under intrusiveness
http://tinyurl.com/koommq . are we sure we need that?)
A few more points:
- auto-downloading the updates is already there, but it's optional and
opt-in - and for a reason. I couldn't afford to use that in my current
situation for example (pay for bandwith). Slow connections may not
afford it. And so on.
- I think that making the user wait for uploads to complete before
login will lead to quite of a backslash, no matter if it's opt-in.
You're proposing opt-in to an undesiderable feature. I still would
have no problem with that, but I'm sure many people would not like it.
- I have the feeling it will be more difficult to code and would
re-use much less of the existing infrastructure.
As a side note, I don't like having update opt-in even on shutdown,
but for sure I think it would be much better than in GDM and may be
helpful for some.
Let me iterate it again, I don't want to bash you or your idea. I just
think it's not good and I encourage you to find some other good point
about it or come out with something different.
Stefano
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login
Thinking more carefully, updates, and specially security updates, are really very, very important. So why not do it all? I mean: 1) Allow updates at login, as it is suggested here 2) Leave a permanent notification symbol on the panel while the session is on (this would take care of notifying users that use auto-login and users that do not logout) 3) Allow updates at logout/reboot/shutdown With that so reminders only the people who really don't want to update won't do it. For security conscious people, that usually don't postpone the updates too much the reminders would not be too much because they would just vanish away once you update for the first time. Moreover, with such pervasive upgrade reminders, I don't really see the need for pop-unders or to interrupt the user work flow in any form. This strategy may be able to make everyone happy and adapt to any work flow. Another advantage, I see is that in GDM and in the logout/restart/shutdown dialog there is enough space to present the upgrade icon with a text explaining what it means. After a while the user will learn what the icon means. Hence, in the panel there is no need for a long message explaining the icon. What you think? Ubiquitous upgrade reminders? Paulo 2009/6/17 David Siegel david.sie...@canonical.com: Kind of kitchy, but puts a more positive spin on the updates. Your mockup makes it look like you must update immediately or risk certain death. David ajmctaggart wrote: Ok, so clearly there are pros/cons to every update situation. Perhaps what I would like to see, as the user, is the option to have the ability to be notified of an update when I want it, at startup or shutdown? Looks like a simple edition to the Setting, menu of current Update Manager, as there are already the option for Download, Notify only, etc. Perhaps this is what the gdm login screen would look like? Obviously the usability experts may have some ideas on placement, wording, etc... I just wanted to get a visual out there. Obviously the discussion is still on the table, and I am not too sure if it should really be ignored as a viable option on user interaction with updates. Thanks, Anthony On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Vadim Peretokin vpereto...@gmail.com mailto:vpereto...@gmail.com wrote: When you turn on your computer, you are engaging with it, signaling that you have time and attention to give to the machine. Why do you think so? A computer can be turned on perform a task with its help, not to maintenance on itself. Sometimes one wants to google a map or something quickly before leaving would be an example. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net mailto:ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
My roll on the Canonical Design and User Experience team is to make Ubuntu the
most enjoyable to use operating system in the world, so I hope you can forgive
me for making [it offers a] more pleasant experience the main thrust of my
argument.
I am not decidedly in favor of updates at GDM over updates at any other point in
time. I am just trying to get us to think more broadly about solutions to the
update problem, and not to jump to premature conclusions.
I can offer other arguable points of merit for updates at GDM:
(1) (This is completely subjective, but my personal experience does include the
experiences of others, and is valid in itself) I often feel less rushed and
stressed when booting my computer as opposed to shutting it down. When I log in,
I wait for applications to load, my mail to download, my music player to start,
etc. When I shutdown, I currently enjoy the luxury that my computer turns off
immediately with no fuss; currently, shutdown does not involve waiting.
(2) Think of portable computer users (laptops and netbooks). They nearly always
have more battery available at boot than at shutdown. In fact, many users shut
their laptops down *only* when they are forced to due so due to an empty
battery. We never want to initiate updates on insufficient power.
(3) Smaller cognitive burden. Think about the worker. At the start of the day,
you boot your machine, grab some coffee, and return to your machine. At the end
of the day, you just want to leave the office! Even if you knew you could leave
something running on your machine and go home, it still might cause a lingering
uncertainty (did it ask me for confirmation? Was there an error? Is my computer
still on right now? Is it logged in?!)
Most of us would be perfectly comfortable initiating an update on shutdown, and
walking away from our machine, but I'm not sure if less sophisticated users are
similarly comfortable behaving this way.
Also, more and more devices running Ubuntu will be laptops and netbooks. We may
want to focus more on those use cases, and less on the use case of a sedentary
desktop.
David
tacone wrote:
People who auto-login or never restart can be handled differently.
Personally, I auto-login, so I would not use this feature, but let's not
think of gurus like us, who participate on Linux mailing lists, and let's
think instead about the average user, who might be made uncomfortable by
computers in general, and may be nervous about their first venture into
Linux.
The core of the idea is, at the face browser, there is a present icon when
you have updates already downloaded and ready to install. They might even be
unpacked already. Beside the present is a simple description like 13
updates available, requires restart. Click to update. The user either logs
in as usual, ignoring the icon (maybe it's at the bottom/corner of GDM), or
clicks the present. Clicking the present prompts for a password, and then
shows an elegant progress bar, installing the updates. If the updates
required a restart, the machine simply restarts, and our new 10 second boot
time brings the machine back up before the user even notices it's
restarting. We don't have to confirm shutdown, because nobody is logged in.
Then, the user logs in to her newly updated desktop.
There are drawbacks to this approach, sure, but do you honestly not see any
merit? I think it delivers a much more pleasant experience than asking the
user at shutdown. At GDM, the user is not in a hurry, and they can take a
moment to decide if they would like to update or not. Asking the user to
update at shutdown feels like a rushed decision; the machine is shutting
down, and you have a brief moment to either opt-in or opt-out of updates.
David, don't think I want to discourage you in any way. I'm pretty
happy with initiatives like yours.
But, of course, one has to see which advantages those effectively bring.
Frankly, seems to me that the only merit you cite ('more pleasant
experience') is highly subjective as it is the consideration that at
login the user is less in hurry than on shutdown. The hurry factor, by
the way, varies depending on the platform (desktop/notebook/netbook).
I'd frankly consider a netbook/notebook user always in hurry, and that
brings down both the login/logout alternatives. For a desktop, though,
the shutdown is nicer.
Sure everything can be ignored, but that also means that such feature
would affect a lower percentage of users, making it less compelling.
I also think that doing things at start up will require much more code
respect of the shutdown option and increased complexity in the
configuration panels (see for example the proposed configuration panel
that will be needed for handling the pop-under intrusiveness
http://tinyurl.com/koommq . are we sure we need that?)
A few more points:
- auto-downloading the updates is already there, but it's optional and
opt-in - and for a reason. I couldn't afford to use that in my
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Siegeldavid.sie...@canonical.com wrote: Most of us would be perfectly comfortable initiating an update on shutdown, and walking away from our machine, but I'm not sure if less sophisticated users are similarly comfortable behaving this way. Most users don't care about updates and don't want to care about them. Ideally all updates should be installed automatically in the background without the user noticing anything. There is a strong study by google favoring silenty updating the browser, as google chrome does: http://www.techzoom.net/publications/silent-updates/index.en Quote from the conclusion: With silent updates, the user does not have to care about updates and system maintenance and the system stays most secure at any time. We think this is a reasonable default for most Internet users. Furthermore, silent updates are already well accepted for Internet Web applications. Of course this has some downsides, but in the end, I think this is the way to go, not bothering the end user with any computer maintainance tasks. Cheers, Wouter ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
I think this is the ideal, but every time I start to bring up implicit updates, I get smacked :) David Wouter Stomp wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Siegeldavid.sie...@canonical.com wrote: Most of us would be perfectly comfortable initiating an update on shutdown, and walking away from our machine, but I'm not sure if less sophisticated users are similarly comfortable behaving this way. Most users don't care about updates and don't want to care about them. Ideally all updates should be installed automatically in the background without the user noticing anything. There is a strong study by google favoring silenty updating the browser, as google chrome does: http://www.techzoom.net/publications/silent-updates/index.en Quote from the conclusion: With silent updates, the user does not have to care about updates and system maintenance and the system stays most secure at any time. We think this is a reasonable default for most Internet users. Furthermore, silent updates are already well accepted for Internet Web applications. Of course this has some downsides, but in the end, I think this is the way to go, not bothering the end user with any computer maintainance tasks. Cheers, Wouter ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM, David Siegeldavid.sie...@canonical.com wrote: I think this is the ideal, but every time I start to bring up implicit updates, I get smacked :) Understandable. I should also say that browser upgrades are different from whole OS upgrade (not to mention we have PPA's and similar stuff). That said, the setting for automated upgrades already exists (system-administration-software sources-updates). If you feel this is important, consider proposing a more prominent place to let users opt-in automated upgrades. (like, say, Ubiquity. We may place a Perform the upgrades for me checkbox just under the 'autologin' checkbox) Stefano ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:22 AM, taconetac...@gmx.net wrote: On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM, David Siegeldavid.sie...@canonical.com wrote: I think this is the ideal, but every time I start to bring up implicit updates, I get smacked :) Had the same experience :-) Understandable. I should also say that browser upgrades are different from whole OS upgrade (not to mention we have PPA's and similar stuff). Of course whole os upgrades are more complicated, but that doesn't make it impossible. There are some problems to be solved (eg firefox behaving strangely when it is updated while in use), but I haven't seen any probkem brought up that can't be solved. That said, the setting for automated upgrades already exists (system-administration-software sources-updates). That works only for security updates. If you feel this is important, consider proposing a more prominent place to let users opt-in automated upgrades. (like, say, Ubiquity. We may place a Perform the upgrades for me checkbox just under the 'autologin' checkbox) That would be nice, and have it checked by default. Wouter ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Updates on Login (was: Re: [Fwd: Update manager])
We should definitely consider as many update scenarios as possible in order to find the one that users will prefer. We are very quick to start implementing updates and shut down without considering something radically different because many of us have experiences updates at shutdown when using Windows. Neither solution is perfect, both have their merits, and this is the perfect place to discuss them. May I ask which merits may the Updates-at-login-time have ? It's not that Windows is perfect, but some times there's a rationale behind the choices done by it. (and, btw, I hated the way Windows tried to trick you into upgrading at shutdown) The drawbacks of updates in GDM are many: - some people auto login, they won't see anything (not big issue, but also not nice) - perceived bigger lag between power on and operability (due to the need to perform a choice) - being reminded to reboot right after having just powered on is not nice. - increased delta with Gnome and possible loss of compatibility with existing GDM themes - increases the workload startup (while the updates are being performed), in a timeframe when there's already load (as the gnome desktop is loading, and the first applications you'll launch will load). I don't think we really need to think different at all costs. Stefano ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
